↓ Skip to main content

Runners with patellofemoral pain demonstrate sub-groups of pelvic acceleration profiles using hierarchical cluster analysis: an exploratory cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Runners with patellofemoral pain demonstrate sub-groups of pelvic acceleration profiles using hierarchical cluster analysis: an exploratory cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12891-018-2045-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ricky Watari, Sean T. Osis, Angkoon Phinyomark, Reed Ferber

Abstract

Previous studies have suggested that distinct and homogenous sub-groups of gait patterns exist among runners with patellofemoral pain (PFP), based on gait analysis. However, acquisition of 3D kinematic data using optical systems is time consuming and prone to marker placement errors. In contrast, axial segment acceleration data can represent an overall running pattern, being easy to acquire and not influenced by marker placement error. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine if pelvic acceleration patterns during running could be used to classify PFP patients into homogeneous sub-groups. A secondary purpose was to analyze lower limb kinematic data to investigate the practical implications of clustering these subjects based on 3D pelvic acceleration data. A hierarchical cluster analysis was used to determine sub-groups of similar running profiles among 110 PFP subjects, separately for males (n = 44) and females (n = 66), using pelvic acceleration data (reduced with principal component analysis) during treadmill running acquired with optical motion capture system. In a secondary analysis, peak joint angles were compared between clusters (α = 0.05) to provide clinical context and deeper understanding of variables that separated clusters. The results reveal two distinct running gait sub-groups (C1 and C2) for female subjects and no sub-groups were identified for males. Two pelvic acceleration components were different between clusters (PC1 and PC5; p < 0.001). While females in C1 presented similar acceleration patterns to males, C2 presented greater vertical and anterior peak accelerations. All females presented higher and delayed mediolateral acceleration peaks than males. Males presented greater ankle eversion (p < 0.001), lower knee abduction (p = 0.007) and hip adduction (p = 0.002) than all females, and lower hip internal rotation than C1 (p = 0.007). Two distinct and homogeneous kinematic PFP sub-groups were identified for female subjects, but not for males. The results suggest that differences in running gait patterns between clusters occur mainly due to sex-related factors, but there are subtle differences among female subjects. This study shows the potential use of pelvic acceleration patterns, which can be acquired with accessible wearable technology (i.e. accelerometers).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 130 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Researcher 11 8%
Other 8 6%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 48 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 22 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 10%
Engineering 5 4%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 55 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 April 2018.
All research outputs
#17,945,904
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2,942
of 4,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,657
of 327,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#40
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,098 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,380 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.